After Michigan, California Joins in the New Wave of Banning Date of Birth in Rental Property History Screening

Back in August, Michigan revealed the latest news that shook the rental housing industry’s bones. The date of birth is one of the most important pieces of identifying information, and anyone who has ever had to pick up a prescription or verify who they are over a phone call can know how important it is. Michigan, in a surely bright moment, decided that it was going to hide this vital piece of information, making it immeasurably more difficult for any screening provider to determine who they are screening.

Back in August, Michigan revealed the latest news that shook the rental housing industry’s bones. The date of birth is one of the most important pieces of identifying information, and anyone who has ever had to pick up a prescription or verify who they are over a phone call can know how important it is. Michigan, in a surely bright moment, decided that it was going to hide this vital piece of information, making it immeasurably more difficult for any screening provider to determine who they are screening.

As of September 1st, the California Supreme Court made it official. During the case of All of Us or None v. Hamrick, in which the organization designed to aid those previous incarcerated, All of Us or None went to court regarding the proper sealing of records. This court case sided with All of Us or None, and in the end cited similarly to that of Michigan.

“As to the third cause of action, plaintiffs note that Rule 2.507(c) requires that courts exclude “date of birth” and “driver’s license number” from a court’s electronic court index.”

As of September 1st, the California Supreme Court made it official. During the case of All of Us or None v. Hamrick, in which the organization designed to aid those previous incarcerated, All of Us or None went to court regarding the proper sealing of records. This court case sided with All of Us or None, and in the end cited similarly to that of Michigan.

“As to the third cause of action, plaintiffs note that Rule 2.507(c) requires that courts exclude “date of birth” and “driver’s license number” from a court’s electronic court index.”

Through the case, it was noted that their right to privacy was infringed on. They argued that the use of ‘white out’ or programmed techniques on data bases to aid in their right to privacy were not absurd and be easily implemented to protect their rights.

Through the case, it was noted that their right to privacy was infringed on. They argued that the use of ‘white out’ or programmed techniques on data bases to aid in their right to privacy were not absurd and be easily implemented to protect their rights.

“Government Code section 68152, subdivisions(c)(8) and (c)(10) each provide that “records shall be destroyed, or redacted in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” Thus, Government Code section 68152, subdivisions (c)(8) and (c)(10) specifically incorporate section 11361.5, subdivision (c)’s requirements, including the mandate that the “the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest or conviction never occurred.””

“Government Code section 68152, subdivisions(c)(8) and (c)(10) each provide that “records shall be destroyed, or redacted in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” Thus, Government Code section 68152, subdivisions (c)(8) and (c)(10) specifically incorporate section 11361.5, subdivision (c)’s requirements, including the mandate that the “the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest or conviction never occurred.””

This case was going to be reviewed for the explicit purpose of trying to keep Dates of Birth in public record, however, on September 1st, the California Supreme Court refused. This means going forward that California will begin redacting dates of birth from public files. For screening companies such as those that provide records for the rental housing industry, this means matching identities, such as to find out who may or may not be dangerous, may become very difficult.

Getting it overturned may not be an easy road moving forward CIC will keep you updated as this issue progresses.

This case was going to be reviewed for the explicit purpose of trying to keep Dates of Birth in public record, however, on September 1st, the California Supreme Court refused. This means going forward that California will begin redacting dates of birth from public files. For screening companies such as those that provide records for the rental housing industry, this means matching identities, such as to find out who may or may not be dangerous, may become very difficult.

Getting it overturned may not be an easy road moving forward CIC will keep you updated as this issue progresses.

Spread the word. Share this post!

Cole Seidner is a copywriter here at the CIC Blog. She holds a degree in Writing from Savannah College of Art and Design with a focus in creative nonfiction. Her free time is spent taking pictures of her dogs or reading deep dive analysis on movies that she hasn’t seen.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.